Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[piezoe]

Remember the planet has been cooling since the time of accretion.

That's a sobering fact. It is good to keep in mind that this business whose name evolved from AGW , to just Global Warming, and then rather absurdly to "Climate Change". Has nothing to do with climate change, nor whether mankind is messing up the global climate -- which is a separate question. It still has only to do with the Hansen Hypothesis. And that hypothesis has to my satisfaction been proven wrong.

My point is this, we wouldn't be trying to get international agreement on CO2 emission if it weren't that we were still stuck on the Hansen Hypothesis, and if it weren't being assumed that Hansen's hypothesis is correct; this, despite the now massive amount of data that's calling Hansen's hypothesis into question. So why are we doing this? And why are we insisting on calling AGW "climate change?" The climate changes regardless of whether Hansen's hypothesis is correct?

I think one has to look in the political/financial realm for the answer to these questions. I least I hope so, because otherwise it is far too depressing to consider that the answers might turn out to be the same as the answer to the question, "why did we wait half a century to start turning right on red?", or the question, "Why are we still sitting at red lights despite there not being another car in sight for miles in all possible approaching directions?"

 

[piezoe]

So how do they pay you? By the post? Number of words?

What do you think of those "scientists" that lied and said tobacco is not harmful? How many more cases of lung cancer did they cause?

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming Paperback – May 24, 2011

Have you read this book?

Oreskes and Conway tell an important story about the misuse of science to mislead the public on matters ranging from the risks of smoking to the reality of global warming. The people the authors accuse in this carefully documented book are themselves scientists—mostly physicists, former cold warriors who now serve a conservative agenda, and vested interests like the tobacco industry. The authors name these scientists—all with powerful connections in government and the media—including Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz, and S. Fred Singer. Seven compelling chapters detail seven issues (acid rain, the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, global warming, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the banning of DDT) in which this group aimed to sow seeds of public doubt on matters of settled science. They did so by casting aspersions on the science and the scientists who produce it. Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at UC–San Diego, and science writer Conway also emphasize how journalists and Internet bloggers uncritically repeat these charges. This book deserves serious attention for the lessons it provides about the misuse of science for political and commercial ends. (June)

Interestingly there are only three of the issues brought up where there is complete agreement. One is smoking and health, where the statistics don't leave room for counter argument (that's not true of health and second hand smoke however); a second is the acid rain issue in which cause and effect, and the chemistry are completely understood and consistent with all observations; and the third is the Ozone hole issue, where the science is thoroughly understood, down the detailed photo reactions and their kinetics which have been proven to be in complete agreement with all observations. Counter arguments can still be launched against the other issues, however, which are not entirely settled, but not for the same reason in each case. By the way, as of 2006 DDT is still used in twelve countries and that number is expected to rise.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Dec 5, 12:06 PM EST

STUDY: WARMING TO TRIGGER 3 TIMES AS MANY DOWNPOURS IN US

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Extreme downpours - like those that flooded Louisiana, Houston and West Virginia earlier this year - will happen nearly three times as often in the United States by the end of the century, and six times more frequently in parts of the Mississippi Delta, according to a new study.

Scientists have long pointed out that warmer air holds more moisture, so man-made climate change will increase the frequency of extreme downpours. That increase has already started , they say, but new work with much stronger computer simulations shows just how bad it will get, and where.

The high-resolution computer simulation - about 25 times better than other computer models - projects at least a fivefold increase in downpours in the Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast and Southwest, according to a study in Monday's journal Nature Climate Change .

Study lead author Andreas Prein, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research , said the entire U.S. will average a 180 percent increase in these types of downpours by 2100. The Midwest and parts of the West Coast are expected to see the smallest increases.

Previous projections haven't been as detailed because they could not take into consideration small scale weather events like thunderstorms. The new computer simulations can, Prein said. He looked at the type of thunderstorms that are in the top one half of 1 percent of rainmakers.

"It's much more likely that you'll get hit by very strong thunderstorms, very strong downpours in the future climate," Prein said. "What this means in the future is you might have a much higher potential for flash floods. This can have really big impacts."

Outside experts praised the study.

"The paper elegantly shows why these heavy downpours increase in frequency when the air is moist but decrease when the air is dry," said Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field. "With high warming through the century, this paper projects that most of the U.S. (gets) scary increases in the frequency of downpours."

---

We get it. Global Warming causes more rain and less rain.

Jem has been arguing for a while that if GW is occurring that it should cause more rain. You and Ricter argued that GW causes less rain.

So do you know think it causes more rain?

 

[Arnie]

Except for the scientists who say otherwise, because that's what science is: human beings doing the research and reporting.

If its settled science, why would they need to do further research?
How many grants are out there for studying gravity?

 

[futurecurrents]

That's a sobering fact. It is good to keep in mind that this business whose name evolved from AGW , to just Global Warming, and then rather absurdly to "Climate Change". Has nothing to do with climate change, nor whether mankind is messing up the global climate -- which is a separate question. It still has only to do with the Hansen Hypothesis. And that hypothesis has to my satisfaction been proven wrong.

My point is this, we wouldn't be trying to get international agreement on CO2 emission if it weren't that we were still stuck on the Hansen Hypothesis, and if it weren't being assumed that Hansen's hypothesis is correct; this, despite the now massive amount of data that's calling Hansen's hypothesis into question. So why are we doing this? And why are we insisting on calling AGW "climate change?" The climate changes regardless of whether Hansen's hypothesis is correct?

I think one has to look in the political/financial realm for the answer to these questions. I least I hope so, because otherwise it is far too depressing to consider that the answers might turn out to be the same as the answer to the question, "why did we wait half a century to start turning right on red?", or the question, "Why are we still sitting at red lights despite there not being another car in sight for miles in all possible approaching directions?"

Nice ad homing and diminishing the argument by calling it "Hansen's Hypothesis" . There is no such thing. It's actually called climatology. Classic MOD tactic.

Did you ever learn why the satellite and land based data aren't exactly the same?

You are so full of shit.

 

[futurecurrents]

What piezoe is is what the think tanks call a Trojan horse. The think tanks know that no matter what, the hard core righty deniers will never change their opinion. So the strategy is to have the operator - in this case piezoe - appear to be a progressive, a lefty. This allows him to gain some credibility with those on the left. Then after entering these ideological gates he springs out with the litany of classic MOD tactics. Casting doubt, ad homing, appearing to be a "scientist".

This is far more effective than having someone who is obviously a conservative spread the doubt.

But he is not being paid by post or word. He's salaried.

 

[piezoe]

Nice ad homing and diminishing the argument by calling it "Hansen's Hypothesis" . There is no such thing. It's actually called climatology. Classic MOD tactic.

Did you ever learn why the satellite and land based data aren't exactly the same?

You are so full of shit.

If you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is, you should look up the word before commenting. All scientists know the word and what it means in the scientific sense. It has always been the AGW Hypothesis. This is not anything I made up. Everyone in science knows exactly what that means. It is attributable to Hansen as the main proponent, which of course is not giving proper credit to those he worked and published with when he was in the habit of publishing in peer reviewed journals. He was the head guy, so credit for the hypothesis defaults to him, and the AGW Hypothesis is therefore synonymous with "Hansen's Hypothesis". Ask any scientist what this means and they will explain it to you, just as I have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

[gwb-trading]

What piezoe is is what the think tanks call a Trojan horse. The think tanks know that no matter what, the hard core righty deniers will never change their opinion. So the strategy is to have the operator - in this case piezoe - appear to be a progressive, a lefty. This allows him to gain some credibility with those on the left. Then after entering these ideological gates he springs out with the litany of classic MOD tactics. Casting doubt, ad homing, appearing to be a "scientist".

This is far more effective than having someone who is obviously a conservative spread the doubt.

But he is not being paid by post or word. He's salaried.

This is amusing when it comes from a member of Skeptical Science's "Crusher Crew" like futurecurrents who are paid to silence any global warming dissenters on the web by "drowning them out".

 

[MoneyMatthew]

What piezoe is is what the think tanks call a Trojan horse. The think tanks know that no matter what, the hard core righty deniers will never change their opinion. So the strategy is to have the operator - in this case piezoe - appear to be a progressive, a lefty. This allows him to gain some credibility with those on the left. Then after entering these ideological gates he springs out with the litany of classic MOD tactics. Casting doubt, ad homing, appearing to be a "scientist".

This is far more effective than having someone who is obviously a conservative spread the doubt.

But he is not being paid by post or word. He's salaried.

I am not trying to be a troll to you futurescurrents but why did it go from being called "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"????

Also, where are the fellow people on the Left to have your back on this? You are fighting a one woman battle here in this thread it seems...

If someone questions mass-muslim immigration they are called a number of names like "islamphobic, racist ect..ect.." by many folks on the Left, yet here you are as a woman fighting all of these horrible people and no one seems to have your back. What "changed" for you besides the climate?

 

[Ricter]

That's a sobering fact. It is good to keep in mind that this business whose name evolved from AGW , to just Global Warming, and then rather absurdly to "Climate Change". Has nothing to do with climate change, nor whether mankind is messing up the global climate -- which is a separate question. It still has only to do with the Hansen Hypothesis. And that hypothesis has to my satisfaction been proven wrong.

My point is this, we wouldn't be trying to get international agreement on CO2 emission if it weren't that we were still stuck on the Hansen Hypothesis, and if it weren't being assumed that Hansen's hypothesis is correct; this, despite the now massive amount of data that's calling Hansen's hypothesis into question. So why are we doing this? And why are we insisting on calling AGW "climate change?" The climate changes regardless of whether Hansen's hypothesis is correct?

I think one has to look in the political/financial realm for the answer to these questions. I least I hope so, because otherwise it is far too depressing to consider that the answers might turn out to be the same as the answer to the question, "why did we wait half a century to start turning right on red?", or the question, "Why are we still sitting at red lights despite there not being another car in sight for miles in all possible approaching directions?"

I asked you once if you thought a single peer-reviewed paper could prove AGW. I don't want you to say what you believe about the matter, but if you think a single paper could do it. Two competent persons here have explained to jem how science and the science of this matter work, but it's not sinking in. As a working scientist yourself, your answer would have weight. So, could a single peer-reviewed paper prove AGW?